On May 4, 2015, a unanimous United States Supreme Court in Bullard v. Blue Hills, 135 S. Ct.
Background: Grupo OAS, a Brazilian construction conglomerate linked to a massive corruption scandal (“OAS”), filed for Chapter 15 creditor protection in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on April 15, 2015, two weeks after entering bankruptcy in Brazil. If “recognized” by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart Bernstein, the Chapter 15 petition would, among other things, essentially bind OAS creditors in the United States to the restructuring terms approved by the Brazilian court overseeing OAS’s reorganization.
Following huge trading losses and the discovery of alleged fraud in a Singaporean subsidiary, O.W. Bunker & Trading A.S. filed for bankruptcy on 7 November 2014in the Danish court, just seven months after the company floated on the stock market. Since then, a number of other O.W. Bunker Danish and overseas entities have also filed for bankruptcy.
On March 12, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the authority of a bankruptcy court to issue non-consensual, non-debtor releases in connection with the confirmation of a plan of reorganization.1 With this decision, the Eleventh Circuit joined the majority view that such releases are permissible under certain circumstances.
Background
Last month, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued an important, 28-page opinion that confirmed a jury verdict, holding former officers and directors of a not-for-profit health care provider in bankruptcy, jointly and severally liable to the facility’s creditors – in the amount of $2.25 million – for breach of fiduciary duty in failing to properly oversee and manage the non-profit entity. Official Comm. of Unsecured Creditors ex rel. Lemington Home for Aged v. Baldwin (In re Lemington Home for Aged), No.
On February 6, 2015, Judge Francisco Besosa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held that the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (the “Recovery Act”) is expressly preempted by section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code and is therefore unconstitutional.
On January 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit entered an opinion holding that an authorized UCC-3 termination statement is effective, for purposes of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”), to terminate the perfection of the underlying security interest even though the secured lender never intended to extinguish the security interest and mistakenly authorized the filing.1
Background
On January 13, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied a petition for en banc review of the Second Circuit’s September 2014 panel decision holding that bankruptcy courts are required to review the propriety of a Chapter 15 debtor’s transfers of property interests within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S., even if such a transfer has already been approved in the debtor’s foreign proceeding. This decision represents a departure from prior cases, in which U.S.
Australia is a member of both the Basel Committee and the G20 and in November, Brisbane was host to the G20 Leaders' Summit.
The agenda focussed on increasing global growth, jobs and economic stability. Despite the positive G20 intentions, David Cameron was quoted as saying "red warning lights are once again flashing on the dashboard of the global economy".
On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court entered an opinion holding that a UCC-3 termination statement that is authorized by the secured party is effective to terminate the original UCC filing even though the secured party did not actually intend to extinguish the underlying security interest.1 Because the court determined that the relevant section of Delaware’s Uniform Commercial Code (the “UCC”) is unambiguous and